William George Crooke

There are two versions of William Crooke’s Biography by Peter MacFie

ADB citation

William George Crooke, founder of Mt Field National Park. Supplementary Volume, Australian Dictionary of Biography.

ADB online

Crooke, William George

THRA Citation

William Crooke, journalist, conservationist and ‘father’ of Mt Field National Park: Peter MacFie, Tasmanian Historical Research Association. 1994 (presented at meeting, but not published at the time)

Download pdf

William Crooke.pdf

Excerpt

The bluestone obelisk at the start of the path to Russell Falls, Mt Field National Park, is dedicated to the Park’s founder, William Crooke. The memorial is in a dark and obscure corner, near the original entrance to the Park, and close to the place where, in 1917, an official ceremony was held to declare open Tasmania’s first National Park. Like the half hidden memorial, William Crooke’s role as an early conservationist is all but forgotten, yet he was responsible for the 1915 Scenery and Preservation Board Act, Tasmania’s first heritage and wilderness protection legislation, which has been described since as ‘the most advanced park legislation in Australia’ for its time, and held rank for over 40 years. [1] He lobbied for the formation of ‘a People’s Park’ at Mt Field, supervised by its own Board. Three years later, in 1920, with the Park’s management undergoing acrimonious change, William Crooke died aged 75.

Mt Field National Park is Crooke’s most visible legacy, but few people know of his influence on early conservation. He needs recognition for this and many other humanitarian social reforms he worked for in the Edwardian era Included was a concern for the housing and working conditions of low income earners, and the plight of deserted wives. But his interests extended further; he was a member of the Australian Natives Association, an active Federalist, a supporter of women’s rights and promoter of railway branch lines. Most of all, he loved the outdoors and the conviviality that came with recreational fishing, and supported the establishment of parks based on overseas examples.

In 1924, Crooke’s obelisk was unveiled by Premier J. A. Lyons, who praised Crooke for his ‘… unselfish interest in the creation of this great national reserve in Tasmania known as National Park…’.[2] Special guests at the unveiling were 600-700 Hobart school children, whose appreciation and enjoyment of the Park was a major concern of Crooke.

The eulogy repeated the sentiments made at the time of the Opening Ceremony in 1917. The Weekly Courier on September 2, wrote

…He was in many matters years ahead of current thought and had to fight his way through many obstacles erected by stodgy minds. He was intensely patriotic, wonderfully progressive, and courageous. He was one of that type that will not admit defeat ….where the public .(interest).. is at stake, and his tenaciousness carried him very often to a wise success where a weaker nature and less fearless man would have given up in disgust.

Hobart’s Mercury and Tasmanian Mail repeated similar feelings. The papers lost their fishing correspondent of 20 years who wrote under the pen-name of ‘Jollytail.’ These and other articles by Crooke were read in ‘mainland, English and American journals…’ Many of these articles went further than just fishing articles, advocating conservation controls, public involvement and education, all delivered with an assertive, almost cocky confidence.

All his ideas will for ever be a monument to his zeal and energy as a citizen. But for his dogged advocacy we should not have had that magnificent playground and sanctuary for our native flora and fauna….

Crooke also lobbied for regional railway lines to Tyenna. (successfully) and the Huon. (without success). The editor also praised his organisation of ‘Children’s Excursions’ to the new Park. [3]

Tasmania was the last of the Australian states to proclaim a national park, but in 1915 passed the strongest and most far-sighted legislation in the country. [4] Although in the late 19th century, Tasmania had several nature reserves selected under the Waste Lands Act, Mt Field National Park was the island’s first ‘national park’, with all that implies.

Despite the area covered by the Park being explored by naturalists and scientists for at least 50 years before the Park’s establishment, other forces were required to bring about the formal creation of such an innovative idea as an area protected from all development. These forces included the lobbying power of the influential intelligentsia of southern Tasmania, and the influences of mainland and overseas examples of conservation management.

The move towards establishing the National Park evokes constant reminders of recent conflicts over conservation, including failed attempts at park reservation before success at Mt Field, such as proposed Freycinet and Mt Wellington Parks in the Edwardian era, and later conflict over Mt Field west in 1950 and Lake Peddar in the 1960’s. Each case is typified by the dominance of the urban middle class intelligentsia, a lack of consultation and effective dispossession of the local settlers, small farmers or timber workers.

Local organisations included the Field Naturalist’s Club, the Royal Society, the Southern Tasmanian Anglers Club, the Fisheries Commission, the Australian Natives Association, the Workers’ Educational Association and former members of the defunct Tasmanian Tourist Association. Members from these bodies were initially represented on the National Park Board.

The Mercury newspaper added weight to support for conservation of forests and reserves. Their influential editor from 1884 was H. R. Nicholls, whose name is now given to a conservative ‘think tank’. Nicholls – a former Chartist radical and recalcitrant republican – was a strong advocate for conservation, arguing for the creation of a national park on the Gordon River in 1908 to preserve the vanishing Huon pine. His interest in conservation was continued by his son, Herbert Nicholls, who became a National Park Board member, and later Chief Justice of Tasmania. The new editor continued the Mercury’s strongly worded support for conservation after Nicholl’s death in 1912.

Acting as the catalyst and lobbyist, William Crooke activated the proposal by his establishing the National Parks Association (NPA) in 1912, which co-ordinated the varied interest groups into a united front. A vital coincidence was the election of the Earle Labor government who supported Crooke’s moves. World War I assisted in acceptance and passage of the legislation, giving the state government some positive news in otherwise sombre years.

At first glance, William Crooke was an unlikely political activist who had spent much of his life in dispute with authorities, a trait perhaps learnt from his father. He was born at Saltwater River Convict Probation Station on Tasman Peninsula in 1844, the eldest son of a Dublin university graduate, the Rev Robert Crooke, the station catechist. His mother was Caroline Drew, daughter of the Superintendent of the nearby Impression Bay Station. (now Premaydena.) To avoid the taint, his birthplace was misleadingly given as Franklin, where his father was transferred in 1853, and while there, ordained an Anglican minister. [5]

Rev Robert Crooke was not averse to controversy. Robert’s convict experience of the Tasman Peninsula convict stations, resulted in an unpublished fictional novel, The Convict,. William Crooke’s later interest in politics was probably influenced by his father, who ‘ was an active speaker at public meetings, a prominent member of the local lodge and … by instinct and interest attracted to colonial politics.’ He acted as Huon correspondent of the Hobart newspaper The Tasmanian Daily News. [6] Rev Crooke used the newspaper columns to push his points of view, as his son was later to use them to promote his ideas on fishing, politics, wilderness management and other issues.

The Crooke family moved to Victoria in 1858 following ‘an acrimonious public controversy’ over claims of impropriety involving Rev. Robert Crooke’s comments on and behaviour toward young women in the Huon district. (also known then as Victoria.) With his wife Caroline, Robert became a teacher, starting at Creswick Church of England school in 1860. In 1861 the couple moved to Emerald Hill, South Melbourne where they remained until her retirement in 1884, and his death in 1888. He was described in 1873 as not teaching very much and ‘confining himself to supervision and punishments.’ As Robert Crooke neared 60 years of age, a visiting inspector described him as feeling himself above his work, and inclined ‘to take things very easy,’ and commented dryly, ‘I do not think the cause of education would suffer much if he were superannuated.’ But he was still teaching until his death, aged 65. The year before another inspector commented more kindly, ‘A headmaster of more than ordinary literary attainments.’ Caroline was described as a careful teacher. (who ) manages the classes with ability and zeal.’ By 1879 she was ‘ a little past her best’, but continued to teach. (She died in 1896.)

In 1861, William Crooke, aged 17, started as a junior teacher with his parents at Emerald Hill Primary School, South Melbourne. [7] William’s teaching career continued in Victoria for 27 years where, with increasing criticism, he was moved to a number of schools across the state. Official correspondence reveals that William developed an interest in conservation and public issues over this time. Crooke served briefly over the next 10 years at Melbourne city state schools, including George Street in Fitzroy, Duneed, Chapel Street Prahran, and rural schools at Seafield and Amherst. [8]

In 1873 he established a small one teacher school at Costerfield, a new mining town near Heathcote and Bendigo in central Victoria, and continued to teach there until 1884. Before moving to the central Victorian village, William married London born Ellen Alston in 1872. [9]

When he arrived at Costerfield in January 1873, the school was held in a bark hut, and Crooke explained that he had a 100 pupils … and a ‘complete absence of all furniture and school requisites…..The great prosperity of the place renders everything expensive. I lodge at the local hotel which is very noisy…. no house of any kind is obtainable, not even a bark hut.’ The school lacked all facilities, and Crooke asked that ‘blackboards, books etc. be sent per Cobb and Co coach via Kyneton and Heathcote.’ [10] Costerfield,’ William explained, ‘is a small township near Heathcote depending upon the rich antimony mine here… and consists of a store, two public houses, the residence of the mine manager and the local storekeeper….scattered about are a few score of bark huts all of them fully occupied. There is no accommodation for the teacher.’

In February, the Inspector objected to the school house, and instead the Wesleyan chapel was to be used as ‘ the sides and roof are of bark, weather-tight,. (with a) good pine floor and pleasantly situated, 30 feet by 20 feet’.

Mrs Crooke was to arrive and act as teacher of needlework. William and his wife were living in an old schoolroom, which became uninhabitable in a few weeks with the arrival of winter rains.

Edward Field, and the chairman of the Board of Advice urged construction of schoolroom as ‘it is not good for the children to be so closely packed together, and on fine days the headmaster often teaches in the bush.’ Later that month, rain flooded the temporary structure erected for infants, and came through the roof of main building. ‘…. The children are all of them damp and many wet, while there is no fire at which to dry their clothes.’

Activity at the school was complicated by the need to remove desks every Friday for the church services, replacing them on Monday morning. The school house was erected later that year, and a house for the Crookes. William wrote in trademark hyperbole,

‘The new residence is absolutely alarming; Mrs Crooke and myself- we are afraid that the rooms are so small that we will be taken for turtle doves or canaries and the rooms for birdcages. The ‘Parlor’ 12 by 10 with a huge chimney…

During 1879, William complained of the impact of the furnaces of the antimony mines on the children, a concern that was to be reflected in a similar stance taken years later over the value of the new national park for children. He referred to the :

… suffering endured by children …..during the past few days from the intense heat and want of suitable water……The school is built on the summit of a hill bare of shelter, and right in front of it are large smelting works. (antimony) (sic) establishments where several large furnaces are constantly going and from which quantities of heated air, oxides and gases are being exhaled…. On such days Costerfield is perhaps the hottest place in the colony.

In addition, the oxides on the roof carried into the school water tanks, which became heated in the summer sun, making the water undrinkable. [11]

Crooke’s experiences were probably typical of many Victorian country school teachers. He demanded a fence around the school to prevent goats and cattle camping against the building overnight, and had to explain damage done to furniture by a meeting of 300 miners.

While he was at Costerfield, inspectors reported on his inability to keep records and manage the school. Eventually he was formally censured and fined 2 pounds for this and neglect of out offices. Ellen meanwhile was ‘removed’ from duties after failing an exam. In 1882 he was again censured for sending articles on school business to the editor of the ‘Leader’ newspaper, and using franked stamps in the process. His energy waxed and waned, but Inspector Gamble commented favourably on his intelligence, and his ‘zeal which sometimes flags.’ [12]

In 1885 he was transferred to Wodonga near the NSW border. Here Crooke is recorded requesting leave from school to attend a meeting of the local Athenaeum and Free Library Society ’of which I am secretary’ to wait on the Chief Secretary. [13]

Other school appointments followed in quick succession, including across the state to the coastal town of Portland, before being moved back to urban Melbourne in 1890. While at Portland, Crooke indulged his passion for angling in both Victoria and South Australia. This passion nearly cost his life, an experience he recounted later in his newspaper column in the Mercury, describing how, when sea fishing near Portland, he was washed off the rocks, and sucked under a sea shelf before being thrown back up on the stones again. [14]

His final school was Prahran West, where Crooke was embittered by an effective demotion, and galled by being junior to a younger female teacher. His affection for children caused Crooke much personal anguish, and his physician described the stress which occurred when giving the cane to pupils. Dr J. Carnegie MacMullen. (surgeon) concurs; ‘…. (When punishing a boy) unless he desists. (he experiences) a sensation as though he were about to die.’ With increasing periods of sick leave, William, aged 50, after 28 years service, was superannuated out of teaching in August 1894, on 140 pounds per annum. [15]

During his work-life, Crooke developed a love of angling, a passion for which he later became a newspaper columnist in Tasmania and Melbourne. In Melbourne he was a member of the Victorian Fish Protection and Anglers Society. From within this organisation he first became active in arousing concern for Victoria’s dwindling fish stock, becoming a letter writer and lobbyist. A month before he retired, Crooke sought a day’s leave from teaching to appear before the Minister for Customs responsible for the Fisheries Board, as a member of a delegation from the Protection Society. This Society consisted of recreational sportsman -mostly ‘gentleman’ anglers- who were concerned about the devastation caused to fish in the bays and waterways of Victoria by pollution from industrialisation and over- fishing for Victoria’s markets. Under the new Victorian Fisheries Act of 1890, a Board had been constituted to administer the legislation, but without a policing agency.

Shortly before his retirement, William Crooke was appointed the Society’s delegate on the Fisheries Board, the first of many official position he was later to hold which enabled him to lobby for legislation. [16]

In 1893 the Fisheries Board held a Select Committee enquiry into the state of Victorian fish stock and marketing. Crooke and three other members of the Victorian Fish Protection and Anglers Society drafted a 12 page list of recommendations in a small report to present to the enquiry. Three members of the Victorian Fish Protection and Anglers Society also gave evidence before the enquiry. Members of the Select Committee included L. L. Smith, MLA, who was a patron of Crooke’s Society. During the enquiry, the Society’s representatives outlined its aims and voiced the concerns which still motivate conservationists today.

The issues aroused by the management of fish stock where closely related to those which arose from the establishment of the Mt Field National Park 20 years later. In both cases, (and in the recent Franklin River debate), the immediate interests of working classes clashed with those who believed that conservation of unique natural phenomena was in the long term -and short term- interests of the activists, and society.

Membership of the Victorian Fish Protection and Anglers Society gave Crooke experience in drafting recommendations on behalf of a lobby group, and dealing with a range of political figures from senior public servants to members of parliament. In addition, there was the direct experience of acting as a member of a lobby group. Later, in Tasmania, these skills were to be invaluable in working with other interested parties, and resulted in Crooke drafting initial rules on the management and protection of National Park.

In 1894, the Fish Protection Society’s delegates told the Select Committee on Victorian Fisheries,

…. our object is to increase the supply of cheap fish, to protect our spawning grounds, and protect the mouths of the rivers to allow the fish to go up the rivers to spawn; also to have the number of the fishing boats ….(and) undersized fish sold at markets. (controlled.). [17]

With no public service to police the regulations, the Society offered rewards to catch offending fishermen, all of whom were trying to make a living by selling in the various Melbourne fish markets. The Society’s members contrasted the former availability of fish in the 1860’s with the shortage, and revealed how members enforced the Fisheries Act by acting as appointed honorary Fish Inspectors for the Fisheries Board, with over half the group’s membership of 200 acting in this role.

…Years ago our Bay was swarming with fish, and our streams too. Where are they gone? We have been working day and night to bring this before you to show you that the fish are being destroyed. This last season we spent time and money and trouble and paid money for rewards for capture in nets and people, night and day, to protect our streams. There is trout in the streams which is being continually shot, (with dynamite) and no one to protect it….

The committee highlighted the impact of 19th century industrial pollution on fish life. Later, Tasmania must have seemed Eden, as in Victoria they found

….. fish dead in rivers due to pollution of the rivers from the various factories, and slaughterhouses, and boiling down places, and chemical places, and tanneries, and wool-washing establishments. In the summer months when there is no fresh water coming down the river, the water becomes almost stagnant, ….. and the fish cannot live in bad water. [18]

In December 1892 Crooke visited Tasmania as a delegate to the Australian Natives Federation League, with instructions to confer with the Tasmanian branch of the ANA ‘on the subject of Federation.’ [19] He returned in February 1894 as a council member of the Australasian Federation League. The issue aroused his democratic spirit. While fully in favour of Federation, he thought epic decisions were being made by too few delegates, resulting in misinformation and apprehension among the colonies. Crooke argued for 700 (sic) not 70 delegates, who due to ‘the paucity of numbers … had failed to influence an adequate constituency.’ He criticised the Convention for not adopting the one man – one vote principal.

‘…. it seems cruel, when the great subject has to be decided upon, that any man, because of his poverty or because he may not be on the electoral roll, should not be treated as a citizen. To every male adult of the population should be allowed the opportunity of having a share in founding the new and great Australian state. [20]

This principal should be adopted as ‘we know that the working classes have a passionate desire for the single vote, and that , if we desire them to go to Federation with whole heart the concession would have to be made.’ Crooke went further; ‘Personally I would wish that every woman in Australia could cast a vote for national unity, but such an advanced proposal could scarcely be expected from responsible heads of Government.’ (op cit.). (These suffrage principles were adopted at the 1894 Warrnambool Conference. [21])

Crooke’s interest in the effects of Federation on the island state continued well after his move to Hobart. In 1912, as secretary of the Citizen’s Committee he sought and obtained support from the Queenborough Town Board in ‘obtaining the full amount of £900,000 awarded by the Royal Commission appointed to determine the losses to Tasmania under Federation.’[22]

By 1894, William had moved to Tasmania, living at Pirie Street, New Town, and a year later, Ashfield Street, Sandy Bay. [23]From 1898 he advertised himself as principal at Derwent College, a private school located at St George’s Church, Cromwell Street, Battery Point. [24]

From at least 1903 until his death, William and Ellen Crooke lived with their son William Bayard. (sometimes Baynard) Crooke, a chemist, at 9 Fitzroy Garden Crescent, South Hobart. [25]

Why William Snr, chose to return to Tasmania is unclear, particularly given his father’s controversial departure. The pollution of the Victorian waterways, plus the earlier move of P. S. Seager to head the Tasmanian Fisheries Commission may have been contributing factors. Crooke’s interest in angling resulted in him buying a ‘…. prettily situated country residence’ on the banks of the river near Russell Falls, where he and his wife entertained visitors.’ [26]

Crooke’s interest in angling continued in Tasmania. In August 1903 the foundation meeting of the Southern Tasmanian Anglers Club was held at the Masonic Rooms. Present were Brent, Morton, Kermode, Seagar, Atkins, and Cook. William Crooke seconded the motion which gave the immediate aim of the group: to ‘assist the Fisheries Commission as there was a good deal of poaching going on.’[27] Crooke and was a member of their social club which met at the Rialto, on the corner of Liverpool and Elizabeth Streets, Hobart. Fishing trips were organised, under Fishing Committee, of Mr Gibson, and Messrs Edridges, E. E. Gifford- while the social committee was in the ‘capable hands’ of J. Cook, W. Crooke, E. V. Harcourt…. (including) trips to Mountain River or the Russell Falls River.’ [28]

Crooke wasn’t afraid to criticise his fellow club members;

Now that the holidays are over, the Southern Tasmanian Angling Club should wake up a bit or the first year of its existence will close and they will find difficulty in collecting the next subscription. One of their duties the North Tasmanian Angling Club never neglects , they have been strangely apathetic in the distribution of trout fry. [29]

Crooke was a supporter of the introduction of trout and other fish into Tasmanian waterways. The only occasion where Crooke referred to the conflict between the impact of introduced fish on native species was in the Victorian Fish Protection Society era.

In 1904 Crooke began his column on angling in the Mercury newspaper using the pen-name ‘Jollytail’, which ran until shortly before his death in 1920. The first columns give a sense of the thrill anglers and others receive from relaxing in a natural setting. His direct writing style was to be characteristic, as was his ability to ruffle feathers. In his first column, he sought and later received regular reports from fellow anglers from all over southern Tasmania.

How am I to fulfil my allotted task and report the exploits of this great but scattered company? Evidently not well, unless the noble army members of this gentle craft come individually to my assistance and act as their own reporters…..I hereby invite all anglers at all times to freely communicate to this address, ‘Jollytail, Mercury Office, Hobart’, relating their own and their friend’s experiences…. and occasionally such interesting and amusing fish stories as will not too strongly tax public credulity.

For it must be remembered that the sport means more than catching fish. It means hours in the open air under the canopy of heaven… To the trout fisherman especially, it means intimate access to nature’s heart, and to all lovers of the human kind it gives many opportunities otherwise denied for social friendship with their fellow men and women.[30]

His arrival was also acclaimed by the Mercury’s opponents. The Critic newspaper described Jollytail as ‘a ray of joyousness over the bleak and dreary columns of the Mercury.’ [31] For 17 years his column gave detailed reports covering inland and sea fisheries, sent in by fishermen and anglers from all over southern Tasmania. Reports were received from Scamander, Southport, the Huon, Channel plus the trout -stocked lakes and streams of the interior. His own experiences as an angler and raconteur guaranteed a regular audience. As indicated, his column was read by other papers. He travelled to northern Tasmania to see how the northern anglers were managing their fishery.

In the acclimatisation of trout and later the introduction of the lyre-bird to the Park, the intelligentsia were in reality acclimatising themselves to their new habitat. Were they unwitting exploiters or just genteel ‘hunter-gatherers’? To see a conflict between reserving a national park, and introducing fish to their streams was a reversal of the process of history. (The place of huts and ski lodges in these areas is also part of this wider debate. )

Crooke’s favourite fishing locality was the Russell Falls (now the Tyenna River) adjacent to the future Mt Field Park. He regularly fished in and around the Lady Barron and Russell Falls. In 1905 he fished the Broad River with W J Hudspeth, the Crown Solicitor and member of the Australian Natives Association. [32]

Tasmania had long appealed to the aesthetic visitor. While the intelligentsia of southern Tasmania were exploring the high country around Mt Field, the eastern foothills near Ellendale were being settled by small holders who relied on snaring wildlife for income. The naturalist and anglers’ appreciation of flora and fauna, and spectacular scenery contrasted with the pragmatic demands of the timber millers and trappers who saw crown land as a resource to be tapped. Despite this, the educated visitors used the local knowledge of the snarers who acted as their guides into the high country of Mt Field.

Appreciation of Mt Field went back much further. In February 1837 Surveyor James Calder’s party camped at Tyenna on the Russell Falls River in the vicinity of National Park village. [33]They were guided by a shepherd by courtesy of Capt. Michael Fenton. Noticing Fenton’s Gap in the ranges, they climbed until a lake now known as Fenton appeared, which he called Lake Barker. (?). In 1869, eminent botanist Von Mueller spent a week collecting plants in the region of Lake Fenton. Mueller was guided by two bushmen from Ellendale, Messrs Rayner who recalled later that, despite the summer heat, von Mueller ‘persisted in wearing his two flannel scarves, a habit the Baron always adopted, both in town and country life’. (see below).

Access to Mt Field was at this time always via Ellendale -then known as Monto’s Marsh, where the Rayners and other trappers lived. Excursions into the area by these families were common. In April 1880 Edward Rayner, his daughter Eliza, plus Kate Irvin and her brother, John Dodd, left for Mt Field east on Good Friday. After camping overnight they walked to Lake Fenton, and the next day reached the Flagstaff on the top of Mt Field East, put there by an earlier survey team. These girls were the first women to climb the mountain. [34]

The scientific intelligentsia of Hobart were also discovering the attractions of the area. Around 1887 Leonard Rodway, Herbert Nicholls and Eustace Maxwell walked in from Ellendale to Lake Fenton and followed the creek leading to the Russell Falls. [35] The general nomenclature -the Rodway Ranges, Lake Nichols etc.- reflects the influence of the intelligentsia. These names are in contrast to the folk names around the Ellendale area where the small settlers farmed, giving names such as Ransley’s Grass, Dog Valley, Manny’s Marsh, Trap Valley to local features.

End of Excerpt

To read more, download the pdf version as above.

Footnotes from excerpt

[1] Mosley, P.39

[2]Daily News 20/6/1924 P.3

[3]Tasmanian Mail, 2/9/1920, p 22 c 3

[4]Hall, 1994, p. 98-9

[5]ADB Biographical Register, Vol. 1 p 151

[6]Crooke, R. The Convict, p. vi, U/T

[7]His brother Charles also began his brief teaching career there.

[8]Personnel File, Education Dept History Section, Melbourne

[9]Victorian Pioneer Index, No. 4553

[10]VPRS 795/ 3295, 19/1/ 1873 ff.

[11]ibid

[12]ibid

[13]VPRS 640/41, 22/9/1885

[14]Merc 4/1/1906

[15]VPRS 640/1903

[16]VPRS 1166/12, 2936, Secretary of State index, 22/11/1893.

[17]Evidence to the Select Committee on Victorian Fisheries, 182-3, Latrobe Library.

[18]op cit., p. 157

[19]Mercury 18/2/94, p 4 AOT Thanks to Michael Roe for this reference.

[20]ibid

[21]Australian Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1 p327

[22] AB 311/2 Queenborough Town Board Minutes, 16/1/1912 p 131.

[23]POD 1895-6, p 222

[24]POD 1989-9, p 66

[25]Denison Electoral Roll 1915, AOT.{(There is no record of their son’s birth in Victorian records, so he may have been adopted. William jnr gained accreditation as a chemist in March 1900 which suggests that the family may have arrived then. (One of his examiners was Leonard Rodway.) (1902 POD, p ??**) }

[26]Merc 24/10/1911, p. 5

[27]Merc 29/8/03 p2

[28]Merc Mar 5 1904, P8

[29]Merc Feb. 6 1905

[30]Merc 4/1/1906

[31]Critic 23/2/07

[32]Merc 12/1/1905 p 3

[33]Love, Tasmanian Tramp, ??, 11

[34]Merc 3/4/1880, P.3 c 4

[35]Merc extract, 1917, PWH Library